Sunday, January 11, 2015

The Enemy Gets a Vote

Well, we knew it would come to this. I noted over two years ago that when dealing with the jihadis, "We should be at war, instead, we are under attack."

That bizarre situation continues.

Muslims, whom we have invited into our countries and to whom we provide all sorts of public assistance, attack us in our homes and places of work, but WE are not at war, just under attack.

Even in the wake of the Paris atrocity of just a few days ago, most Western leaders continue to live in a fog of illusion, confusion, cowardice, and plain dishonesty. One of the few who is trying to dispel that haze, of course, is the remarkable Dutchman Geert Wilders, who lives under constant threat of death from adherents of the Religion of Peace.

Wilders, dismissed by the MSM as a "right wing" maniac because he loves his country and civilization, has stated what should be the obvious fact that we are or should consider ourselves "at war." He was quickly "rebuked" by Dutch PM Rutte, who was about to depart for the absurd "peace march" in Paris,
"I would never use the word 'war,'  . . . We are in a struggle with extremists who are using a belief as an excuse for attacks."
How nice: unnamed "extremists" are employing an unnamed "belief" to excuse their murderous acts. Our leaders can't even bring themselves to name the enemy--here is a hint for them.

Well, I hope against hope and all the odds, that maybe Rutte, Hollande, and all the rest of the prancers and dancers who put on their oh-so-fashionable "JE SUIS CHARLIE" bandanas as they sip coffee in Paris and then march bravely for the cameras, might cogitate on the wise words of USMC General James Mattis, "No war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but, in fact, the enemy gets a vote." 

Our enemy, please note, has cast his vote for war.

"The enemy gets a vote." Were wiser words ever uttered by a mere mortal? They, at least, are right up there in rank with another of the General's remarks, "I come in peace . . . I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I'll kill you all."


at

23 comments:

  1. MBogdasarian@gmail.comJanuary 11, 2015 at 3:00 PM

    More and more several points are being made. 1. Our government cannot protect us completely from attacks, making it more likely individuals will take insuring their security into their own hands. 2. Until our "leaders" understand the immutable nature of those who attack us (there is absolutely no room for compromise as their view of the world is cemented in "truth") we will continue to weaken ourselves trying to find a "humane" solution. 3. As individuals, and then the broader society, see more and more of these attacks and weakening of our liberties in an attempt to deflect the perpetrators, the more likely a demagogue will take control, in a sense costing us our liberties here at home. 4. Weakness in dealing with enemies fundamentally opposed to us gains nothing but contempt. 5. Collateral damage is a "given" and too many apologies about it inhibit the real message: mess with us and you, and the people around you, supporters or not, will suffer. 6. As General Sherman indicated, and practiced, at times those "innocents" who support the continuation of conflict, even by their passive acceptance, must be turned against those directly involved, and this change occurs when their suffering at our hands trumps that they experience from their own. Until Muslims are willing to turn in those who are planning to attack us, we will not be successful. Worrying about antagonizing those people, causing them to hate us, is misleading. They already do. It is time for them to fear us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 1:35 AM

      absolutely correct. The cost has to be higher in being our enemy. Right now, the 'innocents' can accept and assist terrorists and still expect largesse from the west... so why would they do anything?

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 11, 2015 at 4:11 PM

    Dip, I am hearing our Ambassador will be representing us at this circle-jerk. Can you explain why every other country is sending their leader and we are sending some Democrat donor? Seems odd to me. Is this snub intentional?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DRJJanuary 11, 2015 at 7:04 PM

      I'm interested in that, too. I can see this might be too dangerous for Obama to attend, especially on such short notice, but why not send someone more senior to represent the US? Netanyahu took a bodyguard so it seems like Biden, Kerry or Holder would have been reasonably secure.

      It looks like Obama may be more worried about not antagonizing Muslim nations than showing solidarity with our allies.

      Delete
    2. whitewallJanuary 11, 2015 at 9:22 PM

      General Secretary Obama didn't go because it was not all going to be about him.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 10:22 AM

      It would be interesting to know how these decisions are made.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 11, 2015 at 7:47 PM

    The US does have some great generals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 4:48 PM

      Unfortunately, the ones leading the troops have often not been one of those "great" generals. Too often they're caught up with the whole idea of being a general.

      Delete
  4. Celia HayesJanuary 11, 2015 at 8:21 PM

    Sorry - if your news org waffled at posting or printing the original Danish Motoons o'doom, you get no cheap grace over belatedly discovering your devotion to freedom of thought or press from me.
    I posted them on my own website, after considering the risks very carefully. Any major news org who waffled over that, and now is covering themselves with the cheap grace of "I am Charlie" is contemptible in the extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  5. whitewallJanuary 11, 2015 at 9:26 PM

    G'day David. I am trying to get a feel from opinion writers throughout the Western world about Paris. I see one or two writing in Quadrant Online that seem to have things pretty well in hand. Is the Australian Left doing its "Islamophobia" routine or are they quiet?

    ReplyDelete
  6. David from OzJanuary 11, 2015 at 10:16 PM

    G'day Whitewall,
    The Australian Left is starting to go the Islamophobia road and the usual Islamic "spokesidiots" are spruiking the usual "it is all your fault for not doing what we want".
    I'm also sick of hearing people who should know better going the "just because some bloke is firing an AK47 at people while screaming Allah runs a gay bar doesn't mean he has anything to do with Islam"
    Kol tuv mate

    ReplyDelete
  7. FJanuary 11, 2015 at 11:18 PM

    If we had dealt with this properly in 2001 there would have been far less killing on both sides. The longer we wait, the bloodier will be the eventual result. Bloodier for us and especially bloodier for Muslims, who already kill each other in amazing numbers. But our leaders on both sides of the aisle believe in political correctness, and when they finally get outvoted they will have been responsible for far more bloodshed -- but they will feel good about themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 1:00 AM

    We should rubble a muslim city with nuclear weapons in retaliation, it doesn't matter which. Once the muslim powers understand the new reality, muslim terrorism will suddenly dry up. They will be our greatest allies in finding and eliminating these animals.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 6:28 AM

    Simple, society has lost the will to live.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MerkwürdigliebeJanuary 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM

    Interestingly, the French Prime Minister reportedly said "We [France] are at war with radical Islam." If so, he gets it. Sadly, we do not. More gobbledy-gook about extremists hijacking Islam and then we send Eric Holder.

    This is shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whitewallJanuary 12, 2015 at 9:00 AM

      Merk...never fear, Holder may prosecute the General that helped win the Iraq campaign thereby making too many DC liberals look like fools. Pardon the redundancy.

      Delete
    2. MerkwürdigliebeJanuary 12, 2015 at 10:57 AM

      Heard about that. Nothing these tools do surprises me anymore, more's the pity!

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 11:29 AM

      I'm not a softie on national security, but this does sound a bit like it's being pushed by the group that ran advertisements calling him "Gen. Betrayus".
      It's not a surprise those goons made their way into the whitehouse on Obama's watch.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 11:32 AM

    Michael Brown's race has nothing to do with it. If I were to grab for a police officer's gun, I would darn well expect to get shot to death, regardless of the color of my skin.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    This just in from my trusty Twitter feed: Lavrov was present in Paris for the march. Even Putin sent someone.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2015 at 2:21 PM

    The Left has completely pacified western civilizations, including the US, rendering the citizenry unable to defend themselves. This kind of thing wouldn't have happened in any western country before WWII without an even more violent backlash against the minority population. Knowing that that would happen would prevent the initial terrorist act from happening to begin with.

    Mark in Portland

    ReplyDelete
  14. jtJanuary 12, 2015 at 5:07 PM

    the gelded are happy enough with "je suis charlie hebdo." no thanks, i prefer le pen this time: "je suis charlie martel."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael KJanuary 12, 2015 at 5:34 PM

    If he had been white, there would be no demonstrations.

    ReplyDelete